₦airaland Forum

GeneralOuki:
You see how all over the place your arguments are? Earlier you said it's none of his business what the in-laws do since he's not married to th but to Their daughter and according to you the Op should face his marriage and leave the in-laws to do whatever they like as it's Their right to associate with whomever they choose. But here now you're against the Op cutting off the in-laws and focusing on his marriage as he's not married to the in-laws after all. You want him to maintain contacts with the shameless in-laws who disrespect him by robbing their greed on his face, but you don't want him to react to the disrespect from the in-laws.

Funny that was. I laughed.

brain54:
Joke's on you pal...

No, it's on you.

You used the word "discipline" for the parents and I asked you who would do the so-called "discipline", yet you wanted me to define what "you" meant by discipline.

People like you just throw words around and you, especially, expect people to accept them hook, line and sinker just because you decided to name yourself "brain54"?

Your choice of word is wrong, no matter how much you try to come on strongly. You cannot use "discipline" for the parents. Children do not discipline their parents no matter what.
The brave ones can "scold", talk sense into them or whatever. But...discipline? Nah.

GeneralOuki:
✓ You see how all over the place your arguments are? Earlier you said it's none of his business what the in-laws do since he's not married to th but to Their daughter and according to you the Op should face his marriage and leave the in-laws to do whatever they like as it's Their right to associate with whomever they choose.
But here now you're against the Op cutting off the in-laws and focusing on his marriage as he's not married to the in-laws after all. You want him to maintain contacts with the shameless in-laws who disrespect him by robbing their greed on his face, but you don't want him to react to the disrespect from the in-laws.

You aren't making sense. 🤔🤔🤔

How is requiring that OP not cut off the in-laws -- he is literally married to their child --- same as being all over the place? 🤔

What I suggested from the go has been for OP to set up boundaries to limit -- not cut off -- communication and interaction with his in-laws, and focusing more of his energy and attention on his marriage. (Yes, part of being married is also acknowledging the parents of the one you are married to in some ways, limited as they may be.) Why is that hard for you to comprehend?

GeneralOuki:
Can you imagine this sort of mentality

Yes, I can since I have heard in-laws complain that of son/daughter-in-law not treating them right while praising a third-party.

budaatum:
Funny that was. I laughed.

That person is a hypocrite and too feminine centric with his/her views.
Here below is this same person advising the wives to run/disassociate/ cut off from in-laws that gives them problems.

GeneralOuki:
The OP have clearly said that he feels deeply disrespected by this, you're just busy defending rubbish here.

I have previously responded to this. So, please follow the conversation.

alphaNomega:
✓ lol. you can't spot a fake thread when you see one?

OP will soon update us that his wife wants to travel abroad for her Masters degree.

The reason I respond is that this scenario isn't uncommon.

GeneralOuki:
That person is a hypocrite and too feminine centric with his/her views.
Here below is this same person advising the wives to run/disassociate/ cut off from in-laws that gives them problems.

You are just desperate to make this about you aren't you? 🤔🤔

How is a wife going no contact specifically with her mother-in-law (not all of her in-laws) and a man limiting his interaction with all his in-laws different or enough to get one considered a hypocrite?

Problem be say your kind no dey like reason before responding. 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
You aren't making sense. 🤔🤔🤔

How is requiring that OP not cut off the in-laws -- he is literally married to their child --- same as being all over the place? 🤔

What I suggested from the go has been for OP to set up boundaries to limit -- not cut off -- communication and interaction with his in-laws, and focusing more of his energy and attention on his marriage. (Yes, part of being married is also acknowledging the parents of the one you are married to in some ways, limited as they may be.) Why is that hard for you to comprehend?

You're the one who is not making any sense here.

Cutting off from the in-laws can also be a form of setting up Boundaries. It means communications with him are off limits and he's only focused on his marriage since according to you the in-laws are free to mingle with whomever they choose, in that same vain, his is at a liberty to either mingle with the in-laws or cur off from them completely if that would help keep his marriage in tact and also protect his mental health.

You being against him cutting off from the in-laws even after saying should set boundaries is you being all over the place, you want him to endure the disrespect and take it as a man, but you're a hypocrite because below is you advising the women folk to run away from such family/marriage to protect their peace of mind

Kobojunkie:
You are just desperate to make this about you aren't you? 🤔🤔

How is a wife going no contact specifically with her mother-in-law (not all of her in-laws) and a man limiting his interaction with all his in-laws different or enough to get one considered a hypocrite?

Problem be say your kind no dey like reason before responding. 🥱🥱

How is this person not understanding that These are literally the exact same thing? they're all about cutting off with your spouse's parents. Do o need to spell it out like you're in kindergarten before you understand that they are basically the same thing here?

But mba! You expect the man to stay in communication with disrespectful in-laws but advise the woman to not take it.

Abeg shift. I know your type and how you people reason.

Kobojunkie:
I have previously responded to this. So, please follow the conversation.

No. You're downplaying the Op's feelings while telling him to take it in the chin like a good lad. Your tune will be the exact opposite if the Op was a female.

GeneralOuki:
✓ You're the one who is not making any sense here.
Cutting off from the in-laws can also be a form of setting up Boundaries. It means communications with him are off limits and he's only focused on his marriage since according to you the in-laws are free to mingle with whomever they choose, in that same vain, his is at a liberty to either mingle with the in-laws or cur off from them completely if that would help keep his marriage in tact and also protect his mental health.
✓ You being against him cutting off from the in-laws even after saying should set boundaries is you being all over the place,
✓ you want him to endure the disrespect and take it as a man,
✓ but you're a hypocrite because below is you advising the women folk to run away from such family/marriage to protect their peace of mind

You are still not making sense.

I said boundaries to limit, yet you keep pushing for boundaries to cut off... You no dey read to comprehend?

2. You are making any sense. Again, I said he should set boundaries to limit his contact and interaction. What part of that are you really struggling to comprehend or is that you don't understand what boundaries are or what?

3. How does limiting his interactions with his in-laws amount to him enduring the disrespect?

4. Ah, I see! You just want to force an issue where there clearly shouldn't be any. Good luck with that.

Kobojunkie:
. If he met up at their house and found them celebrating, would you say then that they were rubbing it in his face, then too? Look, OP did not give us enough to work with for me to determine that they really meant to rub it in his face.

If OP had approached us complaining that his in-laws had hidden the fact that they were receiving money and gifts from the woman's ex, among other things, I hope you would not be on the side of the in-laws then. 🥱

2. If he did the same to his ex's parents? Do you mean if OP had taken money from the marital communal funds belonging to both him and his wife, and given it to his ex's parents? 😏😏

when you supported what the married ex in-law did, you didn't care to know where his funds were coming from, whether it belongs to both him and his wife or him alone. So why asking now when the table were turned for the source of his funds.
And again you asked if he went over to their house and meet them celebrating it? The clearly stated that it happened not once, maybe multiple times, meaning; they either come to his house and talk about it or they usually call his wife when he's with her to discuss it.
Kobo let's call a spade, a spade

GeneralOuki:
That person is a hypocrite and too feminine centric with his/her views.
Here below is this same person advising the wives to run/disassociate/ cut off from in-laws that gives them problems.

Oi! I'm feminist too! But feminism don't wash in this instance. Unless we want to be arguing the ops wife should marry both her ex and her current, which I can find an argument for if I try really really hard to be illogical and irrational and non-objective indeed.

Shedrack777:
➜when you supported what the married ex in-law did, you didn't care to know where his funds were coming from, whether it belongs to both him and his wife or him alone. So why asking now when the table were turned for the source of his funds.
➜ And again you asked if he went over to their house and meet them celebrating it? The clearly stated that it happened not once, maybe multiple times, meaning; they either come to his house and talk about it or they usually call his wife when he's with her to discuss it.
Kobo let's call a spade, a spade

1. All we know is that a man who happens to be the ex of OP's wife gave money and gifts to OP's wife's family. We don't know the why of the gift, so I have no reason to judge or condemn the gift-giving. How is that the same as supporting? Why are you folks so intent on interpreting this according to what are obviously private delusions?

2. No, it doesn't. OP didn't say it happened more than once or that it happened over at their house. That was me assuming it happened as I described, since the OP did not provide details; please read to comprehend before responding. 🥱🥱🥱

budaatum:
➜Oi! I'm feminist too! ..

I have never been a feminist.... I am a common-senser!

Kobojunkie:
I have never been a feminist.... I am a common-senser!

I'm my own opinion that's even worse, because common things are stuff one easily finds on the streets with very little effort, while much effort is required for superior sense use.

budaatum:
➜I'm my own opinion that's even worse, because common things are stuff one easily finds on the streets with very little effort, while much effort is required for superior sense use.

Common sense is not easily found on the streets. Great effort — knowledge and understanding — is necessary to locate it.

Kobojunkie:
Common sense is not easily found on the streets.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

Common means just about everyone can easily have it. As in, no effort is required for its acquisition. While superior sense requires a lot of effort, which makes it not common to all.

Kobojunkie:
You are still not making sense.

I said boundaries to limit, yet you keep pushing for boundaries to cut off... You no dey read to comprehend?

2. You are making any sense. Again, I said he should set boundaries to limit his contact and interaction. What part of that are you really struggling to comprehend or is that you don't understand what boundaries are or what?

3. How does limiting his interactions with his in-laws amount to him enduring the disrespect?

4. Ah, I see! You just want to force an issue where there clearly shouldn't be any. Good luck with that.

You're just trying to be smart by half while displaying blatant double standards and hypocrisy because of the genders involved.

Like I said, you had earlier advised women to cut off from their difficult in-laws but you can't find the energy to say the same for the men because God forbid agenda doesn't agend.

He is not married to his in-laws as you rightly pointed out, and he should cut off from them since they're being a stumbling block to his mental well-being just like you advised the women folk.

You having a problem with man cutting off from their in-laws and not with a woman doing same speaks volumes about your agenda.

You can try to rigmarole around it but the fact remains that you're being hypocritical here.

budaatum:
➜Sorry, but I beg to differ. Common means just about everyone can easily have it. As in, no effort is required for its acquisition. While superior sense requires a lot of effort, which makes it not common to all.

Locate a dictionary immediately if you are struggling with this one.

com·mon sense
(noun)
noun: common sense; noun: commonsense; modifier noun: common-sense

good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.

GeneralOuki:
she will not cut off contact but would instead keep it away from the husband. The wife and family would become discreet with the communication with the ex. Op should accept the fact that he married into a shameless family and start withdraw whatever emotional attachment he has on that marriage.

It will be difficult for her to continue contacting him secretly. Snd the husband can change her phone number and delete his number from her phone. He should also warn her that she should never take anything from ex. She can be asked to warn her family to stop taking gifts from ex or else the marriage is over.

Eniitankorede:
It will be difficult for her to continue contacting him secretly. Snd the husband can change her phone number and delete his number from her phone. He should also warn her that she should never take anything from ex. She can be asked to warn her family to stop taking gifts from ex or else the marriage is over.

What if she has memorised the ex number? What if they're also friends on Social media, how does the control that? Person that wants to cheat will cheat, you can never prevent that from happening if the two people want it happen.

I don't think telling the in-laws to stop collecting gifts from the ex is the right call, who gives them gifts is not the business of the Op, but flaunting said gifts Infront of the Op is where the Op can put a stop to.

Kobojunkie:
The reason I respond is that this scenario isn't uncommon.

that you know one person who it has happened to you or you read stories like these on gossip sites like nairaland? how?

alphaNomega:
✓ that you know one person who it has happened to you or you read stories like these on gossip sites like nairaland? how?

An uncommon scenario is a scenarios that is commonly obtainable...not a one off or of gossip.